LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. The Proposed Settlement Is Not Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate.
Rule 23(e) places the burden of persuasion on the movers that the proposed settlement is
“fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
WL 92498, at *7 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2012). If the proposed settlement “discloses no reason to
doubt its fairness, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatmentto class representatives or segments of the class, does not grant excessive compensation toattorneys, and appears to fall within the range of possible approval, the court should grant
In re OCA, Inc. Sec. & Deriv. Litig.
, No. 05-2165, 2008 WL 4681369, at*11 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 2008).
1. The Proposed Settlement Provides Misleading Information to Class Members.
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (‘
, claims for damages must be presented firstto the responsible party. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a). In the event that a claim for damages is not paid bythe responsible party within 90 days, the claimant may elect to commence an action in courtagainst the responsible party or to present the claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.33 U.S.C. § 2713(c).
“The Court is satisfied that, pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Settlement, Class
Members who opt out or who possess reserved claims will be able to pursue those claims
effectively outside the Class Settlement.” (p. 26, Rec. Doc. 6418).
BP and the PSC have misledthis Honorable Court and Class Members.
(a) The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
The OPA provides the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”) to pay for oil spill costs
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6831-1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 3 of 25